krysrenee7
@krysrenee7
17 Years5,000+ Posts
Comments: 0 · Posts: 8735 · Topics: 522
What's considered shallow?
I'm talking about the "physical" aspects of a person in this post. If a person loves who you are on the inside but yet isn't pleased with something about you they see on the outside (physical appearance), can you technically fault/knock them for turning you down?
If you notice, people never feel bad for turning down someone whom they don't feel is their "type" personality/mentally/emotionally/psychology/intellectually EVEN IF that person is all they want looks wise. Those people are never called "shallow" or made to feel bad for turning that person down.
A woman/man might turn down a potential partner b/c that person isn't outgoing or honest enough; and when this happens, people give them high-5's for the simple fact that they didn't settle for less than what they really wanted/expected. But yet, if that same man/woman were to turn down a potential partner b/c that person isn't tall or "sexy" enough, people give them hell & call them shallow. Weird
If you notice, people never feel bad for turning down someone whom they don't feel is their "type" personality/mentally/emotionally/psychology/intellectually EVEN IF that person is all they want looks wise. Those people are never called "shallow" or made to feel bad for turning that person down.
A woman/man might turn down a potential partner b/c that person isn't outgoing or honest enough; and when this happens, people give them high-5's for the simple fact that they didn't settle for less than what they really wanted/expected. But yet, if that same man/woman were to turn down a potential partner b/c that person isn't tall or "sexy" enough, people give them hell & call them shallow. Weird
Posted by ellessque
krysrenee7, you should seriously consider writing relationship blogs. I'm not being sarcastic. Your topics are always interesting and insightful.
You could get quite the following.
Thanx love!!! I've def. thought about it! =)
Well like they say beauty is skin deep. Anyone who cant see past looks I see as shallow.
Some people are fine with being shallow. Suppose its not really an insult these days, more of just stating a fact!
Some people are fine with being shallow. Suppose its not really an insult these days, more of just stating a fact!
I always considered shallow to be someone who choose people STRICTLY based on appearance, looks, or money...someone who absolutely DOES NOT factor in personality when it comes to dating standards. For example, someone who dates a person that is good looking but has a dull personality and is dumb as a door nail....and the things is, they know it too but don't care because that person meets all their physical qualifications.
There's nothing wrong with having physical standards, as long as you have personality standards to go along with them. If a deal breaker for you is someone who doesn't possess a physical characteristic that you want then I think that's totally acceptable, as long as your list of deal breakers isn't ALL physical attributes.
I'm aware that there are people who have no physical standards but all these personality requirements. I wouldn't consider that shallow though...I think there needs to be a new word invented for someone who is like that.
There's nothing wrong with having physical standards, as long as you have personality standards to go along with them. If a deal breaker for you is someone who doesn't possess a physical characteristic that you want then I think that's totally acceptable, as long as your list of deal breakers isn't ALL physical attributes.
I'm aware that there are people who have no physical standards but all these personality requirements. I wouldn't consider that shallow though...I think there needs to be a new word invented for someone who is like that.
just for the record, i really hate it when "shallow" gets defined according to a certain type of look. i've known plenty of people who were shallow because they rejected people who were conventionally attractive because they didn't look interesting or smart enough. that's shallow. rejecting someone based on their appearance is shallow. assuming you know who someone is on the inside based on how they look on the outside is shallow.
for example, you mentioned big boobs. i have big boobs. turns out most guys prefer small or even flat (and they all think they're unique for it too). and many will assume negative things about who i am as a person based on my genetics. when i was skinny, it was even worse because they seemed fake, so people would just assume i was some desperate golddigger just because i have a big rack.
for example, you mentioned big boobs. i have big boobs. turns out most guys prefer small or even flat (and they all think they're unique for it too). and many will assume negative things about who i am as a person based on my genetics. when i was skinny, it was even worse because they seemed fake, so people would just assume i was some desperate golddigger just because i have a big rack.
This is interesting because I just read a post from a man on another site who is getting a divorce because he finally realized that his 'shallow needs' for a woman who turned him on physically was NOT shallow. That physical attraction is more important than many want to admit in a relationship. He talked himself out of his needs when he chose to get married for fear of being shallow. So he lies to himself & to her. 15 years go by, he becomes distance, she gets mad, mutual resentment occurs & she files for divorce.
He concluded that he should not have been swayed by popular opinion or the politically correct thing. He should have stuck to what turned him on and not settled by what other people thought he should want.
Now everyone has varying needs. Some are more sexual, some intellectual. Hopefully you get both. Being that I'm on the verge of getting married myself, I know what's important to me and do not feel that I am settling for less than what I want. So, I'd hate for anyone to be pressured into believing that their needs are shallow, even if they are. If it's what floats their boat, who are we to judge? And sexual attraction can last for years. My parents have been married for 40 years and they have very little in common but are still very hot for each other. I say if it works, more power to ya. 😉
He concluded that he should not have been swayed by popular opinion or the politically correct thing. He should have stuck to what turned him on and not settled by what other people thought he should want.
Now everyone has varying needs. Some are more sexual, some intellectual. Hopefully you get both. Being that I'm on the verge of getting married myself, I know what's important to me and do not feel that I am settling for less than what I want. So, I'd hate for anyone to be pressured into believing that their needs are shallow, even if they are. If it's what floats their boat, who are we to judge? And sexual attraction can last for years. My parents have been married for 40 years and they have very little in common but are still very hot for each other. I say if it works, more power to ya. 😉
Just because you can't fathom the idea of being with a certain type of person does not make you shallow.
To be shallow is to make judgements solely on what we see on the surface, failing and refusing to realize the possibilities that exist deeper inside.
This thread has nothing to do with true shallowness.
To be shallow is to make judgements solely on what we see on the surface, failing and refusing to realize the possibilities that exist deeper inside.
This thread has nothing to do with true shallowness.
allow" has this stigma attached to it and I think it's used too much. It is often used as an insult to anyone who considers looks/physical attraction on equal footing with the characteristics of a person we are "allowed" to judge... but it's not that easy. There is nothing wrong with wanting "the whole package". Even if someone is the greatest person on the inside, if there's no physical attraction it isn't going to work.
To me, "shallow" is more this...
Posted by aPiscesPrincess
if someone only focuses on the physicalPosted by candyapples88
someone who choose people STRICTLY based on appearance, looks, or money...someone who absolutely DOES NOT factor in personality
Maybe it's a libra seeking balance but I stray away from almost all extremes. Pretty as a picture but smart as one too? Not interested. Shallow is the extreme where physical appearance is the only thing that matters.
Looks and physical attraction are one of the things that go into making that "whole package". I wouldn't date someone who didn't want kids because I have them and it's part of the "package" that is me. It either fits or it doesn't. I am a smart guy and like to learn and grow my mind all the time; I wouldn't want to be with a "mental midget" either, why is wanting attraction so bad?
Posted by krysrenee7
If you notice, people never feel bad for turning down someone whom they don't feel is their "type" personality/mentally/emotionally/psychology/intellectually EVEN IF that person is all they want looks wise. Those people are never called "shallow" or made to feel bad for turning that person down.click to expand
Elle is right too, you should write. You are very good at clearly explaining yourself and wording comments and questions in a way to provoke thought.
Granted... I have been called shallow a few times before so maybe I am simply justifying my position. 🙂
Posted by VitasXisto
What's wrong with you? Why are you always writing shit about the superficiality/vanity and shallowness of the human nature— and they call me vain? Strong hypocrisy around these threads. Most of your threads consist on shallowness, hmmm I wonder why lol.
This is an public forum, a social gathering place. People come here to chat, pass time, exchange idea, gain support, whatever... this board is titled "Relationships". Guys and girls come here to talk about each other. Thankfully we talk about more than just "Today, my problem is..." stuff. Open ended thought questions are good, especially in a place were people come to talk.
We call you vain because you are always spouting off about your personal superiority.
shallow I would say 3 inch of water is shallow,
I am thinking 3 inch of water, yes at least 3
Posted by LibraSidPosted by VitasXisto
What's wrong with you? Why are you always writing shit about the superficiality/vanity and shallowness of the human nature— and they call me vain? Strong hypocrisy around these threads. Most of your threads consist on shallowness, hmmm I wonder why lol.
This is an public forum, a social gathering place. People come here to chat, pass time, exchange idea, gain support, whatever... this board is titled "Relationships". Guys and girls come here to talk about each other. Thankfully we talk about more than just "Today, my problem is..." stuff. Open ended thought questions are good, especially in a place were people come to talk.
We call you vain because you are always spouting off about your personal superiority.click to expand
Thanks LIBRASID! I'm not one to get very personal on this site. I wouldn't mind but trying to explain everything to a whole bunch of people who have never seen you is a little too much work. I hate trying to get personal advice from someone who knows nothing about me and/or doesn't know the entire story, background, situation, etc. So it's easier for me to seek a general census on how people feel as a whole on certain topics b/c it allows me to take all opinions in stride & seek out other points of view other than mine. =)
I agree with you all. Personality should def. be considered MORE important than the physical, BUT the physical IS important too. So if someone fits my needs personality wise but yet doesn't fit my physical expectations (just as important), can anyone really call me shallow all b/c I accepted/settle for something that I know good & damn well is not really what I want?
I'm not saying I'd leave/turn down someone who was all personality & no looks, but I also find it interesting that people are often made to feel bad for having their own unique physical expecations just b/c maybe half of the population may not meet those standards!
They say a person is wrong for pre-judging based on looks without taking the time out to get to know that person personality wise. BUT is that technically shallow? Isn't that how we base our INTEREST on someone? Feeling like someone is worthy of getting to know based on just the looks (the 1st thing we see) IS STILL pre-judging. So why is it any different for deciding someone may not be worth our time by just basing on looks (the 1st thing we see)? How can we really consider that shallow?
Is the pre-judging itself what's shallow or is it that we had the nerve to turn down something we really don't want shallow? I hope you guys get where I'm going with this =P
I'm not saying I'd leave/turn down someone who was all personality & no looks, but I also find it interesting that people are often made to feel bad for having their own unique physical expecations just b/c maybe half of the population may not meet those standards!
They say a person is wrong for pre-judging based on looks without taking the time out to get to know that person personality wise. BUT is that technically shallow? Isn't that how we base our INTEREST on someone? Feeling like someone is worthy of getting to know based on just the looks (the 1st thing we see) IS STILL pre-judging. So why is it any different for deciding someone may not be worth our time by just basing on looks (the 1st thing we see)? How can we really consider that shallow?
Is the pre-judging itself what's shallow or is it that we had the nerve to turn down something we really don't want shallow? I hope you guys get where I'm going with this =P
They say a person is wrong for pre-judging based on looks without taking the time out to get to know that person personality wise. BUT is that technically shallow? Isn't that how we base our INTEREST on someone? Feeling like someone is worthy of getting to know based on just the looks (the 1st thing we see) IS STILL pre-judging. So why is it any different for deciding someone may not be worth our time by just basing on looks (the 1st thing we see)? How can we really consider that shallow?
We base whether or not we want to give someone our initial time on looks. If a guy/woman is sexy, we somehow configure in our minds that this person is worth getting to know, EVEN THOUGH we don't know a lick about them. For all we know, they could be crazy or a serial killer.
But yet people coined the term "shallow" for the people who decide NOT to bother getting to know someone based on looks EVEN THOUGH they could have the best personality in the world (we don't know a lick about them). So it's sounding like the pre-judging is wrong altogether moreso than the actual standard(s) themselves.
People say looks aren't important BUT yet how come people use looks as their primary basis for which they decide whether or not to get to know someone? Looks ARE important, yes b/c it's the 1st thing we see, BUT for some people they prioritize certain things more than others. Some people prioritize finding a partner who is athletic moreso persay than they do someone who is religious. And some people prioritize finding a partner who is muscular/skinny the same as they do finding someone who is outgoing.
They're ALL standards. They're ALL things that we want, whether they're unrealistic or not SOMEONE will eventually meet that standard in this world.
Is it even fair to knock someone for prioritizing ALL their standards (not just personality, but the physical, sexual, & ALL other aspects of a person)? Personality IS important BUT it's NOT the only thing that matters. The proof of that is in the fact that we primarily base our attraction on everything BUT personality. So if looks were important & the deciding factor in the beginning, how come it's "shallow" or "wrong" for someone to allow looks/anything physical to be the deciding factor after the initial meet & greet? Just curious
We base whether or not we want to give someone our initial time on looks. If a guy/woman is sexy, we somehow configure in our minds that this person is worth getting to know, EVEN THOUGH we don't know a lick about them. For all we know, they could be crazy or a serial killer.
But yet people coined the term "shallow" for the people who decide NOT to bother getting to know someone based on looks EVEN THOUGH they could have the best personality in the world (we don't know a lick about them). So it's sounding like the pre-judging is wrong altogether moreso than the actual standard(s) themselves.
People say looks aren't important BUT yet how come people use looks as their primary basis for which they decide whether or not to get to know someone? Looks ARE important, yes b/c it's the 1st thing we see, BUT for some people they prioritize certain things more than others. Some people prioritize finding a partner who is athletic moreso persay than they do someone who is religious. And some people prioritize finding a partner who is muscular/skinny the same as they do finding someone who is outgoing.
They're ALL standards. They're ALL things that we want, whether they're unrealistic or not SOMEONE will eventually meet that standard in this world.
Is it even fair to knock someone for prioritizing ALL their standards (not just personality, but the physical, sexual, & ALL other aspects of a person)? Personality IS important BUT it's NOT the only thing that matters. The proof of that is in the fact that we primarily base our attraction on everything BUT personality. So if looks were important & the deciding factor in the beginning, how come it's "shallow" or "wrong" for someone to allow looks/anything physical to be the deciding factor after the initial meet & greet? Just curious
Posted by CappyyLuv30
I'm actually less picky/choosy/whatever about looks as depth in character trumps muscles or anything superficial like that HOWEVER I do have an overall type/idea/preference of what I'm attracted to. Does that make me shallow? I don't think so but some feel that way. Oh well.
Interesting. It's almost like people judge others who don't prioritize certain traits (physical & personality) in the order that THEY would. Can I really knock someone for prioritizing more someone who is religious moreso than athletic. I may put someone being athletic at the top of my standards list, while others may put that at the bottom. Are any of us really wrong though?
Some people prioritize someone who is outgoing (example) more than they do finding someone who is funny. While another 500,000 people may think those who don't prioritize 100 other things 1st must be crazy.
At the end of the day, we all have different reasons for why we prioritize diff. things in the 1st place. Sometimes it's not that a man refuses to date a fat chick simply b/c he's shallow or can't see past looks. Maybe his mother died from a weight-related illness. Same with smoking. Maybe I'd turn down a smoker b/c my grandfather died from lung cancer. And hey, technically the whole world could say, "Why turn him down for being a smoker when he has everything else going for him?" And my response would be that hey, b/c of my own personal/unique experiences, smoking happens to be HIGHER on my list of standards than many other things.
But simply having standards and/or having a preference (even IF half the world probably won't/doesn't meet that standards) isn't wrong. For some the physical is just as important (not more than) personality. To each it's own
Posted by krysrenee7
They say a person is wrong for pre-judging based on looks without taking the time out to get to know that person personality wise. BUT is that technically shallow? Isn't that how we base our INTEREST on someone? Feeling like someone is worthy of getting to know based on just the looks (the 1st thing we see) IS STILL pre-judging. So why is it any different for deciding someone may not be worth our time by just basing on looks (the 1st thing we see)? How can we really consider that shallow?
Is the pre-judging itself what's shallow or is it that we had the nerve to turn down something we really don't want shallow? I hope you guys get where I'm going with this =P
It's not "pre"-judging, it is deciding. Like you said, appearance/attraction is one of the many things we look for in people. Once you've seen the person it isn't "pre" anything anymore. It is judging someone's looks based on their looks. I don't see ANYTHING wrong with it.
If a friend hands you the phone and says "Here, talk to this girl/guy real quick I think you'd be good together" and the first thing that person says to you is that they like to kick puppies, would it be wrong to "exclude them from the running"? I don't think so. They'd have failed the basic "decent person" test haha.
No, appearance isn't the only thing I am looking for but it is on the list. It also doesn't really mean anything to anyone but me because someone else may not agree with who I find attractive. That doesn't mean anyone is right or wrong, it's just what they like. It also doesn't mean that if you aren't the most beautiful person I've ever seen I won't acknowledge you. I think people hear "shallow" and run with it... those damn extremes again.
Would we really want people to not do this anyway? Would you want to be with someone who isn't all the way into you? You're ALMOST my dream girl but I'm not attracted to you so we'll have to let that slide and fake the passion part... no thanks!
@Tooser: Well you guys are more than welcome to push the back button & go to another thread, if that'll make you feel better =)
@LibraSid: I agree. People are so quick to say, "Oh man, you lost out on a good thing," as if the person is supposed to feel a great deal of loss over something they never even had to begin with. You can't miss what you never had!
Just b/c someone is beautiful on the outside doesn't mean that they'll fit the standard for which they consider someone beautiful on the outside. Same vice versa. Just b/c someone is great looking doesn't mean that they have a single thing to offer personality-wise.
For the people who are very picky/strict/shallow (OR WHATEVER) about their specific "type" or preference, it is what it is. They want what they want. Some women don't want a man w/o a job. Sure, he could be the best man in the world, BUT in HER mind, him not having a job gives her a way to pre-assume/judge him in a negative way. Some men only like dating super skinny chicks. Of course the chicks who aren't super skinny will be the FIRST ones to have a problem with that standard, but hey if a guy wants skinny, he's not wrong for wanting it & not stopping until he gets it.
People always say, "Oh you lost out on a good thing," as if there's NO possible way or person out there for each one of us that actually can AND will meet our standards. People love to say that other's standards are "unrealistic" but if you think about it, there probably IS a 120pound chick who looks like Halle Berry & who just so happens to have a great personality (other great traits) too. Sure, it may take a man a little bit longer to find her, BUT he shouldn't necessarily settle for less than what he really wants b/c if he does, that'll be like him insinuating that what he's got (and really does NOT want) is the best that it gets. And we all know that mindset has gotten alot of people in trouble and/or been the forefront behind people "settling"
@LibraSid: I agree. People are so quick to say, "Oh man, you lost out on a good thing," as if the person is supposed to feel a great deal of loss over something they never even had to begin with. You can't miss what you never had!
Just b/c someone is beautiful on the outside doesn't mean that they'll fit the standard for which they consider someone beautiful on the outside. Same vice versa. Just b/c someone is great looking doesn't mean that they have a single thing to offer personality-wise.
For the people who are very picky/strict/shallow (OR WHATEVER) about their specific "type" or preference, it is what it is. They want what they want. Some women don't want a man w/o a job. Sure, he could be the best man in the world, BUT in HER mind, him not having a job gives her a way to pre-assume/judge him in a negative way. Some men only like dating super skinny chicks. Of course the chicks who aren't super skinny will be the FIRST ones to have a problem with that standard, but hey if a guy wants skinny, he's not wrong for wanting it & not stopping until he gets it.
People always say, "Oh you lost out on a good thing," as if there's NO possible way or person out there for each one of us that actually can AND will meet our standards. People love to say that other's standards are "unrealistic" but if you think about it, there probably IS a 120pound chick who looks like Halle Berry & who just so happens to have a great personality (other great traits) too. Sure, it may take a man a little bit longer to find her, BUT he shouldn't necessarily settle for less than what he really wants b/c if he does, that'll be like him insinuating that what he's got (and really does NOT want) is the best that it gets. And we all know that mindset has gotten alot of people in trouble and/or been the forefront behind people "settling"
Where is the line drawn? When is it ok to stick by your guns & refuse to take anything less than what you REALLY want & when is it ok to tweak/compromise your standards just a little bit?
Who says anything is "right" or wrong"? What is right or wrong being defined by and by whom? Anyways....to answer the question. Nobody's standards are technically "wrong" only right FOR THAT PERSON. I think people trick themselves into believing that if they meet someone who meets all of their standards they will be happy.
Lets say that I am dating a man who meets all of my standards and I his. I see it is that we have just denied ourselves the opportunity to see the potential that we have within ourselves and the potential possibility for the relationship to grow. The chance to push each other and challenge each other to be our best.
To put it simply, I would rather be with someone who has the potential to earn a million dollars than the man who already has it. Everything else along the way, is a bonus.
Who says anything is "right" or wrong"? What is right or wrong being defined by and by whom? Anyways....to answer the question. Nobody's standards are technically "wrong" only right FOR THAT PERSON. I think people trick themselves into believing that if they meet someone who meets all of their standards they will be happy.
Lets say that I am dating a man who meets all of my standards and I his. I see it is that we have just denied ourselves the opportunity to see the potential that we have within ourselves and the potential possibility for the relationship to grow. The chance to push each other and challenge each other to be our best.
To put it simply, I would rather be with someone who has the potential to earn a million dollars than the man who already has it. Everything else along the way, is a bonus.
well everyone has a preference and there is nothing wrong with that but i think it is wrong when u may have an amazing guy or girl who really loves u a lot and is everything u can ever want but u break up with theem or decide not to be with them just because they dont have a 6 pack or their boobs arent big. it shouldnt matter
Good points guys. It all depends on one's definition of what "shallow" actually means. To 1 person, they're standards are considered "shallow" while to another person those very same standards are exactly that, standards. And people are taught from an early age to follow AND DEMAND that ALL of their standards be met, b/c if not they're technically "settling."
And most people are actually afraid of settling & honestly, certain are very SMART to consider the things they don't want b/c they know their own weaknessess. They know how they're mind magically transforms to the "grass is greener on the other side" mindset once their needs (that are secretely more important to them than they've lead on/told others) go ummet for a long period of time. This is in part reason why so many people cheat. It's not their partner's fault. It's the cheater's fault for picking something that they knew from the beginning wasn't enough or good enough for them. And most people are very loyal to & cherish what they consider "good enough."
To some people, expecting a person to be anything over an 8 (on a scale from 1-10) is considered "shallow," while to others, they consider that "settling" if they DON'T walk away from those under an 8. And people are just as afraid of settling the way they are being seen/labled as shallow
And most people are actually afraid of settling & honestly, certain are very SMART to consider the things they don't want b/c they know their own weaknessess. They know how they're mind magically transforms to the "grass is greener on the other side" mindset once their needs (that are secretely more important to them than they've lead on/told others) go ummet for a long period of time. This is in part reason why so many people cheat. It's not their partner's fault. It's the cheater's fault for picking something that they knew from the beginning wasn't enough or good enough for them. And most people are very loyal to & cherish what they consider "good enough."
To some people, expecting a person to be anything over an 8 (on a scale from 1-10) is considered "shallow," while to others, they consider that "settling" if they DON'T walk away from those under an 8. And people are just as afraid of settling the way they are being seen/labled as shallow
Join the Conversation. Explore Yourself. Connect with Others.
Discover insights, swap stories, and find people. dxpnet is where experiences turn into understanding.
Create Your Free Account →Related Topics
and even if you still see the person, does it take you days, months, years to completely move on? this time it took m
Im in a lousy mood so venting seems like a good time as any. One of my pet peeves anymore is people relying too much on
Every now and then I pop in here to update the details on my long-winded adventure with a Virguy I met some 10 months ag
On 1 hand, I can respect all day a man who deeply respects & appreciates his mother. I think it's awesome when a man has
Some of you are completely against your partners going to any kinds of clubs, bars and/or ANY type of atmospheres where
I was watching prison wives on cable and it blew me away..... i guess marriage and prison are the same thing...:)
What do you do when your heart is broken? What I do might sound strange but I push all the feelings into a song. Lik
Is it a good or a bad thing if you feel like you haven't seen someone in forever, when in reality it's only been a few d
I love these kinds of stories. I have a few I want to share, but don't feel like typing much since my feminine time has
My brother (a taurus) and his wife (a leo) will be celebrating their first anniversary this month (the 23rd), and last n
I've never understood why people put these on their partner. One of my friends has banned her boyfriend from sex for a m
So girls and guys which one would you prefer? I was talking to a guy friend about this recently. He was a buying a dr
Sorry, I know I said it in the title, but I find the word for the female organ to be increasingly vulgar. There are wor
Oh my how the times have changed!!! 20+ years ago, it seemed men were the only ones doing the abusing! Even though th
Okay, so I posted once about one of my roommates and her girlfriend, whom we don't exactly like. Well, in the past few w
teachable? Is this important in a relationship
Ladies, don't you hate it when you're out somewhere (club, bar, walking down the street or WHEREVER) & guys touch you or
Russ Par asked this question this morning on his radio show: Who has the BETTER sex life? -Single people? -Married c
We all have a "preference." Some of our preferences may be considered "shallow" to others (the only people who usually consider you shallow are the ones who DON'T meet your standards lol) but then again, what ever happened to a person's right to want what they want & not stop until they get it?
Is a person truly wrong for turning down someone who is a great catch but yet isn't athletic, or have muscles/big boobs, a certain height, a certain race, etc? Some people are dead serious about what they want & won't stop until they get those things. If you really think about it, didn't our parents raise us to go after the things/people we want?
If a man wants a woman with a big butt, is he technically wrong for wanting that? If a man wants a woman who looks like Halle Berry is he technically wrong for that? Is he wrong for wanting a girl who weighs less than 150 pounds? Is he wrong for only wanting a woman who is willing to have sex with him 4 or more times a day? (These are all examples)
My point is: Where is the line drawn? Some people want what they want & if you think about it, the only people who really complain about another person's standards/expectations are usually the same ones who don't meet those standards. For example, the woman whose under 140 pounds doesn't ever really give a man hell for wanting a woman whose skinny. The only time he's probably called "shallow" is when he's met a woman whose over the 140-150 limit!
Where is the line drawn? When is it ok to stick by your guns & refuse to take anything less than what you REALLY want & when is it ok to tweak/compromise your standards just a little bit?
So many people throw around the word "shallow" so much. Yes, there are the people who purposely raise the bar so high b/c they know no one will ever reach it & then there are the people who are so "unrealistic" that they end up missing out on a "good thing." BUT, technically, can a person really feel a sense of loss if they turned down a person who has/represents something they genuinely don't want?